Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25743486›Full record

Trial reportThe British journal of nutrition2015

Effect of bovine colostrum feeding in comparison with milk replacer and natural feeding on the immune responses and colonisation of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli in the intestinal tissue of piglets.

Sugiharto Sugiharto, Ann-Sofie Riis Poulsen, Nuria Canibe, Charlotte Lauridsen

Open access · hybridAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The British journal of nutrition, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Infectious Dose of a 2018Veterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sugiharto SugihartoDepartment of Animal Science,Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Aarhus,8830Tjele,Denmark.
Ann-Sofie Riis PoulsenDepartment of Animal Science,Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Aarhus,8830Tjele,Denmark.
Nuria CanibeDepartment of Animal Science,Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Aarhus,8830Tjele,Denmark.
Charlotte LauridsenDepartment of Animal Science,Faculty of Science and Technology, University of Aarhus,8830Tjele,Denmark.
Aarhus University · DKDiponegoro University · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present study investigated the effect of feeding bovine colostrum (BC) to piglets in comparison with feeding a milk replacer (MR) and conventional rearing by the sow on the intestinal immune system and number of enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) colonising the intestinal tissue. Piglets (23-d-old) were allocated to one of the following four groups: (1) killed at the beginning of the experiment (Base); (2) separated from the sow and fed BC (BC-fed); (3) separated from the sow and fed a MR (MR-fed); (4) kept with the sow (Sow-Milk). Blood was sampled on days 1 and 8, and faecal samples were collected on days 1, 3, 5 and 8. On day 8, piglets were killed and gastrointestinal digesta and intestinal segments were collected. The frequency of diarrhoea was found to be higher (P≤ 0·019) in MR-fed piglets than in BC-fed and Sow-Milk piglets. Piglets from the MR-fed group had the lowest lactic acid bacteria:haemolytic E. coli ratio (P(treat)= 0·064) in the faeces. The number of E. coli colonising the intestinal tissue was higher (P< 0·001) in piglets from the MR-fed group than in those from the BC-fed and Sow-Milk groups. Piglets from the Sow-Milk group had a higher (P= 0·020) mucosal IgG concentration than those from the MR-fed group, but did not exhibit any difference when compared with piglets from the Base and BC-fed groups. Piglets from the BC-fed group exhibited a reduced (P≤ 0·037) expression level of Toll-like receptor-4 in the intestinal mucosa when compared with those from the MR-fed and Sow-Milk groups. The expression level of IL-2 was higher (P≤ 0·051) in piglets from the MR-fed group than in those from the other treatment groups. In conclusion, feeding BC rather than MR to the piglets reduced the colonisation of intestine by ETEC and modulated the intestinal immune system, whereas no differences were observed in piglets fed BC and conventionally reared by the sows.

Indexed as

Animal FeedColostrumImmunity, MucosalAnimalsBileCattleDenmarkEnterotoxigenic Escherichia coliFecesFeeding MethodsGastrointestinal ContentsGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalImmunoglobulin IsotypesInterleukin-2Intestinal MucosaIntestine, SmallImmunoglobulin IsotypesInterleukin-2Toll-Like Receptor 4Weak piglets

Identifiers

PMID25743486
PMCPMC4392705
OpenAlexW2160822952

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.